Did I Leave the Left or Did the Left Leave Me?

Feminists for Life ^ | Elliot Klein

[evilsmoker]

Did I Leave the Left or Did the Left Leave Me?

Twenty years ago, I knew who my friends were. Long hair, tye-dyes and bell bottoms were our uniform. I also knew that what we all believed in was right: freedom, peace, love, compassion, and life.

We fought against the war in Vietnam because it was killing our brothers and sisters and their children. We demonstrated against CIA actions in Central and South America because we thought that "Kill a Commie for Christ" was just a tad misconceived. We stood side by side with our African-American brothers and sisters because Klansmen, Nazis, and all-American bigots were killing them for kicks. We marched for women's rights and the ERA.

We still fight to end the torture of animals in laboratories, the abuses heaped on helpless farm animals, the animals caught in traps and the fur-farm victims who are skinned alive to satisfy the vanity of the obscenely rich.

Over these two decades we have had many causes, struggles, battles. All of them to preserve the ideals we knew were right. And we were as one. We loved life and would fight forever to protect its sanctity.

But today something is wrong. I look around me at the animals rights demonstrations, at the vigils against the death penalty, at the Earth Day celebration, and the anti-apartheid rallies. All of these people who are my family in the struggle for life are against me. I cannot speak to my friends about THE ISSUE.

When did I lose my sanity? When did my world become so distorted that I stopped seeing the truth? How can I not know that true compassion is saving whales, dolphins, dogs, mice, minks, South Americans, Brazilian rain forests and even convicted murderers but not an unborn baby?

And how did it happen that these right-wing, fascist, capitalist, imperialist, industrial-military exploiters of everything that lives can feel the same as I do about abortion?

In Buddhism there is a meditation which aims at achieving mental equanimity, the viewing of all sentient beings in the exact same light. In it, the meditator visualizes an enemy, a friend and an acquaintance about whom s/he has no feelings. The meditator thinks of why s/he has certain feelings about each, then remembering that each of the three has been in a different relationship with the meditator in previous lives, reverses the feelings about each, visualizing the friend as the enemy and the enemy as the friend.

Somehow this meditation has become reality. I am joined with those I distrust most and alienated from those I love. The result of this, the end product of my respect for all life as sacred and equal is my complete isolation. I could have friends among the "left" but we could never agree about abortion. I could have friends in the "pro-life" camp but their idea of life seems too selective.

So I remain alone, wondering who can explain this all to me? Who can clear up this mystery? Is it not hypocrisy to call one's self pro-life but support wars and the death penalty, ignore starvation, use products tested on animals, eat meat, wear leather? Is it not hypocrisy to scream and yell to save every life but one's own unborn child, especially when one admits one can't be sure it is not life?

Somehow it seems that, if we have dedicated our lives to fighting for the rights of the unprotected, that we must fight on for the protection of the most vulnerable of all life. If we are wrong in seeking to protect that life, the end result will only be more babies born. However, if they are wrong and the slaughter continues, they will have murdered their own children and helped others do the same. Is this not cause for tears?

Elliot Klein
Reprinted from SisterLife

[evilsmoker]

I never did understand how the "compassionate" party could be so cruel when it came to babies. I hope this group catches on and some of those in the Party of Death (aka Democrats) come over to our side on this issue.

[evilsmoker]

As you would say...PONG!!!

[Lumberjack]

When was this article originally published? Twenty years ago it was 1982, there was no war in Vietnam at that time, Reagan was President, the Civil Rights movement was a fait accomplis, and bell bottoms and tye dye were laughed at if they were presented in public.

If this is a new article, methinks the author has either made a math mix up or is nostalgic for the wrong period.

[farmfriend]

Bump or the babies.

[Enterprise]

Maybe he meant 30 years ago.

[evilsmoker]

I don't know when it was published. I was just surfing around the website and came across it. There was no date listed that's why I left the 'date published' space blank when I posted it.

[evilsmoker]

Oops, I "ponged" myself the first time!

[denydenydeny]

Mandatory picture of Honorary Chairperson of FFL Patricia Heaton:

[Redcloak]

The writer's problem is that he's trying to apply logic to an emotion-based construct. He opposes abortion, as well as all of the other practices he believes destroy life, based upon a more or less logical application of his values. If A is wrong and B is similar in nature to A, then B wrong too. What he fails to understand is that his fellow travelers on the left have not arrived at their views through any such logic. They feel that this thing or that thing is wrong. They feel that eating meat is wrong. They feel that wearing leather is wrong. (Unless it's a really cute dress and you're out clubbing! Then it's OK.) They feel that the death penalty is wrong. But, when they think about abortion, they feel that it's "a woman's right to choose". There is no logical disconnect because there was no logic to begin with.

[Iscool]

So I remain alone, wondering who can explain this all to me?

I can explain it...Too many drugs while trying to be a significant hippy...SOLUTION??? Can't deal with reality??? Suicide is probably the best solution...Solves your problem AND our's...

[concerned about politics]

I hope this group catches on and some of those in the Party of Death (aka Democrats) come over to our side on this issue.

Nah. The only life they care about is their own..."me,me,me....gimmie,gimmie,gimmie...."

[teeman8r]

patricia heaton is a schwing ping

[OldFriend]

This writer is only half way to common sense and logic. She needs to rethink all her assumptions about what it means to be a conservative. It's a lot more than just being pro-life.

[concerned about politics]

The writer's problem is that he's trying to apply logic to an emotion-based construct. He opposes abortion, as well as all of the other practices he believes destroy life

I commend him on his stand against abortion, but for the sake of all other life, he should stop eating. Only one life would be lost...his. Save the weeds, man.

[Jhoffa_]

And how did it happen that these right-wing, fascist, capitalist, imperialist, industrial-military exploiters of everything that lives can feel the same as I do about abortion?

Oh my..

Somewhere, someone is struggling to balance Party Loyalty and Principle.

Heaven forbid he ever find the Liberal version of Free Republic and be brainwashed by the Gore cult.

"But, Gore HAS to support abortion, it's a 'master plan' to defeat the evil Republicans, stupid"

[timydnuc]

The "compassionate party", as they call themselves, is no more compassionate than a fire hydrant! Their aim is to take the liberty that we have from us. They will tell us what to do, and where to do it. They separate themselves from the "govererned" because they are the "elite". The governing "class". They are so much better than "the simple people" because they are better than we are, and they know what we need. Forget the Constitiution that protects us, and defends us. They know better than that document, and better that the blood that runs through our veins. Their Jack boots will stomp out the freedom of two hundred and some odd years...!

Do you really want to let that happen? I'll be ready to stand and fight!

[WFTR]

So I remain alone, wondering who can explain this all to me? Who can clear up this mystery? Is it not hypocrisy to call one's self pro-life but support wars and the death penalty, ignore starvation, use products tested on animals, eat meat, wear leather?

No, it isn't hypocrisy. It is the ability to make proper distinctions.

The convict who is executed for the crimes that he/she has committed is paying the price for his/her own actions. Many of us believe that there are crimes for which the appropriate punishment is death. We believe (although we know times of skepticism) that the government can use this form of punishment correctly. Therefore, we support capital punishment. The important distinction is that the unborn child is innocent but the executed convict is guilty. If you don't believe that any crime justifies execution, I can respect that belief. I just don't share it and won't vote for it. If you believe that no government will ever function well enough to be trusted with the death penalty, I can respect that opinion as well and come closer to agreeing with you. However, for now, I believe our government can be trusted with that power, so I will not vote with you.

Just as there are individuals who will commit crimes for which they should be punished by death, there are nations and ideologies that must be fought because they are a threat to our nation. Communism killed at least 70 million and by some counts 100 million of its own subjects in the last century. If allowed to rule the world, it would have killed many more. Every time we stopped a nation from falling under its power, we saved lives. You may not like it, but fighting wars is sometimes the most moral action a country can take. Just as it is pro-life to oppose the killing of the unborn child, it is pro-life to defend oneself and one's country.

Political and social conservatives have never ignored starvation. That accusation is a pure, evil, leftist lie. Conservatives have opposed the ideas of the left because those ideas are counterproductive. Conservatives are realistic enough to know that we cannot save everyone no matter how much liberals want to believe that we can. Conservatives instead try to do what is right without spreading more suffering. Conservatives do not support large, wasteful, counterproductive government or U.N. programs but give many dollars from their own pockets to worthwhile efforts to make things better. If liberals had a record of charity this good, things would be much better.

Animals are just animals. They are not people and are not as valuable as people. Mindless cruelty to animals is wrong, but equating them with people is also wrong. The important distinction here is that the unborn child is a person and a person is always more valuable than an animal.

WFTR's Abortion Opinions
Bill

[evilsmoker]

Thanks, I would have posted it myself had I known how.

[evilsmoker]

As you correctly state, "they" call themselves the compassionate party - I sure don't. But that's the best way to go after these people on the abortion issue - emotionally. They always run around telling everyone how much empathy they have and how conservatives are greedy, cold-hearted, b*******. That's why, when discussing abortion with a liberal, you need to bring down the argument to a level they can understand. Tell them how you just can't understand how they seem to want to protect everyone (the chilren, the environment, animals, the poor) but when it comes to babies, they won't give them the time of day. I guarantee you they'll suddenly want to change the subject.

[evilsmoker]

Of course they are wrong on all the other issues, but if we can get them with us on the pro-life issue who cares?